Economy

Highlights The May official PMI shows that manufacturing in China will slow over the coming year unless the recent doubling of U.S. import tariffs can be reversed and the imposition of the remaining tariffs can be avoided. The divergence between H-shares and both A-shares and the domestic fixed-income market suggests that China’s domestic financial market participants are pricing in some probability of a major reflationary response by Chinese authorities. We agree that such a response will occur over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors stay overweight Chinese equities within a global equity portfolio over that time horizon. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, April’s activity data provided early evidence that the trajectory of the economy was beginning to turn prior to the breakdown in U.S./China trade talks, in response to a meaningful credit improvement in Q1. The May Caixin manufacturing PMI was stable, but the official PMI fell and the experience of last year clearly shows that manufacturing in China will slow over the coming year unless the recent doubling of U.S. import tariffs can be reversed and the imposition of the remaining tariffs can be avoided. Assuming that the Trump administration follows through with its threat, investors are likely to see a repeat of last year’s perversely positive effects of tariff frontrunning on the Chinese trade data over the next few months; this should be viewed as confirmation of an impending collapse in trade activity, rather than a sign that the underlying trade situation is improving. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, the most notable development is the contrast between the relative performance of investable Chinese stocks on the one hand, and domestic equities and the Chinese fixed-income market on the other. The recent performance of investable stocks confirms that they have been driven nearly exclusively by trade war developments for the better part of the past year, whereas the somewhat better relative performance of A-shares and the calm in the government bond, corporate bond, and sovereign CDS markets suggests that China’s domestic financial market participants are pricing in some probability of a major reflationary response by Chinese authorities. We agree that such a response will occur over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors stay overweight Chinese equities within a global equity portfolio over that time horizon. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1A Strong Response From Policymakers Will Likely Offset The Coming Tariff Shock Both Bloomberg’s and our alternative calculation of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) rose in April, albeit only fractionally in the case of the latter. Still, as we noted in last week’s report,1 the Q1 rebound in credit appears to have halted the decline in investment-relevant Chinese economic activity (Chart 1). This suggests that the trajectory of the economy was beginning to change in April prior to the breakdown in U.S./China trade talks, implying that an aggressively stimulative response from Chinese authorities to counter a full 25% tariff scenario has good odds of succeeding. This supports our cyclically overweight stance towards Chinese stocks. Our leading indicator for the LKI declined slightly in April, but remains in a very modest uptrend. The gap between accelerating credit growth and the sluggishness of our leading indicator is explained by the fact that growth in Chinese M2 and M3 has been slow to rise. A weaker-than-expected recovery in Chinese economic activity is much more likely if money growth remains weak, but we cannot reasonably envision an outcome where credit growth continues to trend higher and growth in the money supply does not meaningfully accelerate. The incoming Chinese housing data continues to provide conflicting signals. The annual change of the PBOC’s pledged supplementary lending injections declined further in April, which since 2015 has done an excellent job explaining weak housing demand. However, both floor space started and sold picked up in April (Chart 2), and house price growth remained steady despite a significant decline in the breadth of house price appreciation across 70 cities. Policymakers are likely to allow aggregate credit growth to accelerate significantly over the coming 6-12 months in order to counter the deflationary impact of a trade war with the U.S., but our sense is that policymakers will then refocus their financial stability efforts on the household sector (i.e. they will work to prevent another significant reacceleration in household debt growth). Given this, we continue to expect that housing demand will remain weak, although we will be closely watching floor space sold over the coming few months. The new export orders component of the official manufacturing PMI is signaling an external outlook that is as negative as the 2015/2016 episode. The May official manufacturing PMI fell back into contractionary territory, led by a very significant decline in the new export orders component (Chart 3). The Caixin manufacturing PMI was stable, but the outlook for manufacturing in China is clearly negative unless the recent doubling of U.S. import tariffs can be reversed and the imposition of the remaining tariffs can be avoided. Investors are likely to see a repeat of last year’s perversely positive effects of tariff frontrunning on the Chinese trade data over the next few months; this should be viewed as confirmation of an impending collapse in trade activity, rather than a sign that the underlying trade situation is improving. Chart 2Surprising Resilience In China's Housing Market (For Now) Chart 3A Clearly Negative Outlook For Manufacturing There has been a sharp contrast in the behavior of the Chinese investable and domestic equity markets over the past month, which in our view confirms that the former has been driven nearly exclusively by trade war developments for the better part of the past year. Chart 4 shows that the relative performance of investable stocks (versus global) has nearly fallen back to its late-October low, whereas A-shares technically remain in an uptrend despite having sold off. Some investors have attributed the relative support of A-shares to aggressive buying by the “national team”, state-related financial market participants that the government has relied on since 2015 to manage volatility in the domestic equity market. Chart 4Are A-Shares Acting More Rationally Than The Investable Market? However, it is also possible that the A-share market is acting more rationally than the investable market, by focusing on the possibility of a major reflationary response to the Trump tariffs. This contrast in behavior between the investable and domestic markets was also observed pre- and post-February 15th, when the January credit data was released. Prior to this point, the A-share market was (rightly) not confirming the relative uptrend in investable stocks; following February 15th, A-shares exploded higher in response to tangible evidence that a upcycle in credit had arrived. If it is true that the A-share market is better reflecting the prospect of a reflationary response from Chinese policymakers, the relative performance trend for domestic stocks supports our decision to remain cyclically overweight Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark.   Chinese utilities and consumer staples have outperformed in both the investable and domestic equity markets over the past month, which is not surprising given that these sectors typically outperform during risk-off phases. Within the investable market, the sharp underperformance of the BAT (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) stocks has been the most interesting (Chart 5). To the extent that the selloff in BAT stocks reflects trade war retaliation risk (through, for example, delisting from U.S. exchanges), then the selloff is rational. But the fact that Tencent (which also trades in Hong Kong) has also declined so sharply suggests that investors are blanket selling Chinese technology-related stocks out of concern that the sector will be heavily implicated by punitive action from the Trump administration. The BAT stocks are domestically oriented, meaning that “Huawei risk” appears to be minimal. Chart 5A Potential (Future) Opportunity In The BAT Stocks Beyond the near-term risk from deteriorating sentiment, the selloff in BAT stocks may present a cyclical opportunity for investors. Unlike Huawei, whose export-oriented business model relied on the U.S. as part of its supply chain, Alibaba and Tencent are largely domestically-driven businesses whose earnings will depend mostly on the outlook for Chinese consumer spending. We agree that reflationary efforts by Chinese policymakers will attempt to avoid stoking a significant acceleration in residential mortgage credit, but it is difficult to envision a scenario in which China stimulates aggressively and consumer spending growth does not accelerate. As such, investors should closely watch the performance of BAT stocks in response to reflationary announcements and developments on the credit front; we would strongly consider an outright long stance favoring BAT stocks if a technical breakout occurs alongside the release of data that is consistent with a significant improvement in the macro outlook. There has been little movement in the Chinese government bond market over the past month, with the Chinese 10-year government bond yield having fallen merely 10 basis points since late-April. This is in contrast to what has occurred in the U.S., with yields on 10-year Treasurys having come in roughly three times as much over the past month (Chart 6). The relative calm in the Chinese government bond market is echoed by the relative 5-year CDS spread between China and Germany, a component of our BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator. While the spread has certainly moved higher in response to the breakdown in trade talks and President Trump’s full imposition of tariffs on the second tranche of imports from China, it remains below its 2018 average and well below levels that prevailed in 2015 and 2016 (Chart 7). Similarly, Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads have not reacted negatively to the resumption in the trade war, with the spread on the aggregate ChinaBond Onshore Corporate Bond Index up one basis point over the past month. Taken together with the relative performance of A-shares as well as Charts 6 and 7 we see this as evidence that China’s financial market participants are pricing in some probability of a major reflationary response by Chinese authorities. Chart 6Relative Calm In China's Fixed-Income Market Chart 7China's Sovereign CDS Spread Is Rising, But The Level Remains Low A decline in the RMB is necessary to stabilize China’s economy (and is thus reflationary), but global investors will not act like it is until the economy visibly improves. Global financial market commentary on the RMB has been focused almost exclusively over the past month on the USD-CNY exchange rate, but Chart 8 shows that the decline in the currency has been broad-based. The RMB has fallen roughly 1.4% versus the euro over the past month, and over 2% versus an equally-weighted basket of Asian currencies. We highlighted in our May 15 Weekly Report that a 25% increase in tariffs affecting all U.S.-China trade would cause economic conditions in China to deteriorate to 2015/2016-like levels, and that currency depreciation was essential in order to generate a 2015/2016-magnitude policy response.2 However, to the extent that the decline in the RMB will contribute to a period of greater volatility in the global foreign exchange market, China-related assets are not likely to respond positively to this form of stimulus until “hard” activity data clearly shows a meaningful rise. Chart 8The RMB Has Declined Against Everything, Not Just The Dollar   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Waiting For The Pain”, dated May 29, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Inverted Curves & Recessions: While an inverted U.S. Treasury curve has been a reliable early indicator of past U.S. recessions, the current inversion appears “too soon” relative to the evolution of U.S. economic data today compared to past recessions. The Role Of The Term Premium: Term premia on U.S. Treasuries are negative at all maturities, much more so further out the yield curve, thanks to historically low economic and inflation volatility and, of late, greater investor risk aversion. This suggests that the economic signal from an inverted Treasury curve is somewhat distorted by unusually low bond risk premiums. The Stance Of Monetary Policy: Curve inversions that precede recessions are typically accompanied by tight monetary policy that trigger slowing growth expectations. On that front, the Fed’s current stance is roughly neutral based on measures like r* or the Taylor Rule. That does not, however, preclude the Fed from delivering rate cuts to offset the potential economic shock from escalating U.S. trade protectionism. Feature The rush into the safety of government debt accelerated rapidly last week, after another Trump Tariff Tweet targeted Mexican exports to the U.S. Investor confidence, already shaken by the escalation of the U.S.-China trade war, was further eroded by the news that the U.S. was willing to broaden the use of blunt economic tools like tariffs to deal with national security issues like illegal immigration. Global equity and credit markets sold off sharply, adjusting to both higher uncertainty and lower growth expectations. The biggest moves, however, came in the U.S. Treasury market. The 2-year Treasury yield fell -14bps to 1.92% after the Mexico tariff announcement and ended -34bps lower for the entire month of May – the largest monthly decline since November 2008 during the depths of the financial crisis. The 10-year Treasury yield fell -37bps on the month to 2.13%, below the fed funds target range of 2.25-2.5% and 22bps lower than the 3-month U.S. Treasury bill rate. This triggered the dreaded “inversion” signal that has preceded the majority of post-WWII U.S. recessions. The current Treasury curve inversion is not signaling an imminent U.S. recession – although it may signal a need for the Fed to ease policy to offset global growth uncertainties and below-target inflation. Given the well-known predictive properties of an inverted Treasury curve, investors are right to be more nervous about the outlook for U.S. economic growth and the potential for a recession. Multiple Fed rate cuts are now discounted in shorter-maturity Treasury yields. At the same time, the intense flight-to-quality bid for duration exposure has driven the term premium on longer-maturity Treasuries – and all other developed market government bonds – down to unprecedentedly negative territory (Chart of the Week). This can potentially alter the meaning of an inverted yield curve with regards to future economic growth and expected changes in monetary policy. Chart of the WeekUST Curve Inversion: A Too-Tight Fed Or A Too-Low Term Premium? In this Weekly Report, we discuss the typical drivers of yield curve inversions and conclude that the current Treasury curve inversion is not signaling an imminent U.S. recession – although it may signal a need for the Fed to ease policy to offset global growth uncertainties and below-target inflation. Could The Treasury Curve Be Wrong This Time? Chart 2This Is A GLOBAL Bond Rally The current sharp fall in government bond yields is not only occurring in the U.S. Treasury market. Yields are hitting new cyclical lows in many countries, with the 10-year German Bund yield ending May at an all-time low of -0.2%. Yield curves have bull-flattened during this move, with 10-year yields trading below 3-month Treasury bill rates not only in the U.S., but even in places like Canada and Australia (Chart 2). Global yields have been falling steadily since late in 2018, seemingly with little regard to the performance of risk assets in either direction. This suggests a more fundamental driver – like deteriorating growth expectations or perceptions of overly-tight monetary policy – rather than simple asset allocation decisions by investors. In July 2018, we published a Special Report discussing the drivers of yield curve shape in the major developed markets and the potential economic implications.1 For the U.S., we concluded that when the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield traded below the 3-month U.S. Treasury bill rate for an extended period of time (i.e. more than just a few days), the U.S. subsequently entered recession within twelve months, on average (Table 1). With the 10-year yield now trading below the 3-month rate, the clock may have already started counting down to a recession sometime in the next year. Table 1U.S. Curve Flattening, Inversions & Recessions Since 1960 Abstracting away from the yield curve, however, not all other U.S. economic data is behaving in line with past periods leading up to U.S. recessions. The New York Fed has a model that determines the probability of a U.S. recession one year ahead based on the slope of the 10-year/3-month Treasury curve.2 The current curve level translates into a 36% probability of a recession one year from now, which is in line with the probabilities seen before the three previous U.S. recessions (Chart 3). Chart 3New York Fed's Yield-Curve Based Recession Probability Model Flashing Red Abstracting away from the yield curve, however, not all other U.S. economic data is behaving in line with past periods leading up to U.S. recessions. In Chart 4, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” analysis of selected U.S. economic data series, comparing the current backdrop to past U.S. business cycles. For all panels, the solid line represents the current cycle, while the dotted line is the average of the past five U.S. business cycles. The data is lined up such that the vertical line in the chart represents the start date of past U.S. recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Shown this way, we can look how the data is evolving today and see how it compares to the way the data typically moves in the run-up to a recession. Based on the data, we can make the following conclusions: The current weakness in the U.S. manufacturing sector is in line with the start of past recessions, based on the depressed level of the ISM Manufacturing New Orders-to-Inventories ratio. The Conference Board’s U.S. leading economic indicator is usually contracting in the year prior to the onset of recession; today, the year-over-year growth rate is slowing but remains positive at 2.6%. The U.S. consumer is in much better shape today - initial jobless claims are not rising and consumer confidence is not falling, as typically happens in the run-up to an economic downturn. Non-financial corporate profits also typically start to contract about one year before a recession begins; today, profit growth has slowed from the tax cut fueled surge of 2018, but has not yet downshifted into negative territory on a year-over-year basis. We can apply the same cycle-on-cycle analysis to the U.S. Treasury curve to see how today compares to past pre-recessionary periods (Chart 5). Typically, the 2-year Treasury yield falls below the fed funds rate about one full year before the start of a recession, and ends up around 150bps below the funds rate when the downturn actually begins. In the current cycle, the 2-year dipped below the funds rate back in March of this year, and now sits 58bps below the funds rate. Both of those curve relationships, however, are influenced by the changing nature of the Treasury term premium. Chart 4Only A Manufacturing Recession Chart 5Mixed Messages From The Curve The New York Fed produces estimates of the Treasury term premium for all maturities, from one year up to ten years, which allows us to see how the term premium looks different today than prior to past U.S. recessions.3 As can be seen in the bottom two panels of Chart 5, the 10-year term premium has averaged between 100-150bps in the year prior to U.S. recessions, while the 2-year term premium has averaged between 25-50bps over the same period. Today, the term premia for 10-year and 2-year yields are now both deeply negative. This suggests that the current inversion of the 2-year/fed funds curve, and the 10-year/3-month curve, is likely giving too pessimistic a signal about future U.S. growth – a fact corroborated by the cycle-on-cycle analysis of U.S. economic data. Bottom Line: While an inverted Treasury curve has been a reliable early indicator of past U.S. recessions, the current inversion appears “too soon” relative to the evolution of U.S. economic data today versus past recessions. The Message From Depressed Bond Term Premia Today, the estimated term premium for 10-year Treasuries and 2-year Treasuries is -88bps and -70bps, respectively. This means that not only are bond investors willing to accept yields below the expected path of interest rates over the life of a bond (i.e. a negative term premium), they are accepting an even lower term/risk premium for bonds with longer maturities and durations – bonds that are more risky strictly in terms of price volatility. Why would that be? Typically, bond term premia are driven by the following factors: The volatility of inflation The volatility of bond yields and returns The volatility of economic growth Investor risk aversion Proxies for the first three factors are presented in Chart 6, alongside the estimate of the 10-year Treasury term premium dating back to the early 1960s. Broadly speaking, bond term premia have been higher when realized inflation is more volatile (second panel), unemployment is high (third panel) and Treasury yield volatility is elevated. Today, all of those factors are at, or very close to, the lowest levels seen over the past 50 years. No wonder term premia are so depressed. Chart 6Term Premia Are Depressed For Structural Reasons ... Today, while there has been some modest pickup in GDP volatility, the overall stability of growth and, more importantly, inflation is consistent with depressed bond term premiums. This is mildly exaggerating the pessimistic growth signal from an inverted Treasury curve.  Investor risk aversion does not exhibit the same type of broad multi-decade trends as growth and inflation, but it is safe to assume that investors become more risk averse when the economic backdrop is more uncertain. Periods of stable growth, categorized by low variability of U.S. nominal GDP growth or a rising trend in the global leading economic indicator, are associated with narrow term premiums and low measures of market-implied bond volatility like the MOVE index of U.S. Treasury option prices (Chart 7). Chart 7... And Cyclical Reasons This result does seem counter-intuitive – more economic uncertainty should make bonds safer, not riskier! The key to remember here is that it is only the term premium component of yields that rises during periods of greater volatility. Actual bond yields fall during those same periods, but because of more fundamental drivers like falling inflation expectations and a lower expected path of interest rates as the Fed eases policy. Today, while there has been some modest pickup in GDP volatility, the overall stability of growth and, more importantly, inflation is consistent with depressed bond term premiums. This is mildly exaggerating the pessimistic growth signal from an inverted Treasury curve. Bottom Line: Term premia on U.S. Treasuries are negative at all maturities, much more so further out the yield curve, thanks to historically low economic and inflation volatility and, of late, greater investor risk aversion. This suggests that the economic signal from an inverted Treasury curve is somewhat distorted by unusually low bond risk premiums. So Is The Fed Actually Running A Tight Monetary Policy? As we discussed in our yield curve Special Report last July, curve inversions typically occur during periods when monetary policy is considered restrictive. For example, every time the real fed funds rate (actual fed funds minus core PCE inflation) has been above the Fed’s estimate of the neutral r* real rate, the 10-year/3-month Treasury curve has inverted (Chart 8). Currently, the real funds rate is essentially equal to the Fed’s latest r* estimate, suggesting that monetary policy is neutral and not restrictive. Chart 8Too Soon For Sustained, Policy-Induced Yield Curve Inversion Other measures like the Taylor Rule can also provide an indication of whether monetary policy is too tight relative to real interest rates and measures of economic spare capacity. If policy was too restrictive, with a fed funds rate above the Taylor Rule, this would imply a more “fundamental” Treasury curve inversion. The Atlanta Fed’s interactive Taylor Rule tool provides estimates of a variety of Taylor Rules, using differing measures of the neutral real fed funds rate and measures of spare capacity.4 We show the results of those Taylor Rules in Table 2. Only one of twenty rules shown is currently producing a fed funds rate below the current 2.25-2.5% range, with fifteen rules indicating that a higher funds rate is still required. Table 2Taylor Rule Fed Funds Prescription Heat Map For 2019: Q2 Chart 9Our Fed Monitor Is Close To Calling For Rate Cuts Yet despite the more traditional indicators suggesting that the current level of the fed funds rate is not too high, that does not mean that there are not potential pressures on the Fed to cut rates. Our own Fed Monitor remains near the zero line, suggesting that no change in the Fed’s stance is warranted (Chart 9). Yet when looking at the individual components of the Fed Monitor, there has been enough softening of U.S. growth and inflation momentum to justify Fed rate cuts. Only the Financial Conditions component is preventing the overall Monitor from moving into the “easier policy required” zone. In other words, if equity and credit markets continue to sell off and the U.S. dollar continues to rally, a Fed rate cut becomes a higher probability outcome. Investment Conclusions Summing it all up, it does not appear that the current inverted Treasury yield curve is signaling a risk of a U.S. recession within the next 6-12 months. A very flat Treasury curve is appropriate with a Fed policy stance that is appropriately neutral. On a cyclical perspective, we still think that a small below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration for global bond investors is warranted, along with a modest underweight in U.S. Treasuries in currency-hedged global bond portfolios. On a more tactical basis, however, there is a growing chance that the Fed delivers an “insurance” rate cut or two before year-end in response to the increasing uncertainties over global growth and intensifying trade wars. Those cuts are largely discounted in the current level of yields, though. Our 12-Month Discounter now indicates that -75bps of rate cuts over the next year are priced into the U.S. Overnight Index Swap curve. A good tactical way to play for Fed cuts in 2019 is to implement a fed funds futures calendar spread trade to take advantage of possible near-term Fed actions. Investors should buy the August 2019 contract and sell the February 2020 contract – a position we are adding to our Tactical Overlay (see the table on page 15). The long position in the August contract will turn a profit if the Fed responds to market turmoil and cuts rates at the June or July meetings. Meanwhile, the short position in the February 2020 contract will only lose money if three or more rate cuts occur between now and then. On a more tactical basis, however, there is a growing chance that the Fed delivers an “insurance” rate cut or two before year-end in response to the increasing uncertainties over global growth and intensifying trade wars. We would expect our spread trade to return +45bps (unlevered) in a scenario where the Fed keeps rates flat until next March and +19bps (unlevered) in a scenario where there is one rate cut in June or July and another rate cut between September and January. The only scenarios where the trade loses money involve two or more rate cuts between September and January. Bottom Line: Curve inversions that precede recessions are typically accompanied by tight monetary policy that trigger slowing growth expectations. On that front, the Fed’s current stance is roughly neutral based on measures like r* or the Taylor Rule. That does not, however, preclude the Fed from delivering rate cuts to offset the potential economic shock from escalating U.S. trade protectionism. Go long an August 2019/February 2020 fed funds futures calendar spread trade to profit from near-term “insurance’ Fed rate cuts.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Three Frequently Asked Questions About Global Yield Curves”, dated July 31, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com and usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Details of the NY Fed’s probit model of U.S. recession probability based on the slope of the Treasury curve can be found here: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/capital_markets/ycfaq.html 3 There are several methodologies used to estimate term premia for government bond yields; the one used by the New York Fed is the Adrian, Crump and Moench (ACM) approach, details of which can be found here: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/data_indicators/term_premia.html 4 The Atlanta Fed’s interactive Taylor Rule tool can be found here: https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/taylor-rule.aspx?panel=1 Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Feature Markets have turned jittery in the past month. Global growth data have deteriorated further (Chart 1), with Korean exports, the German manufacturing PMI, and even U.S. industrial production weak. Moreover, trade negotiations between the U.S. and China appear to have broken down, with China threatening to retaliate against U.S. sanctions on Huawei by blocking sales of rare earths, and refusing to negotiate further unless the U.S. eases tariffs. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategists now give only a 40% probability of a trade deal by the time of the G20 summit at the end of June (Table 1). As a result, BCA alerted clients on 10 May to the risk of a further short-term 5% correction in global equities.1 Recommended Allocation Chart 1Worrying Signs? Table 1Chances Of A Trade Deal Fading Fast What is essentially behind the global slowdown, especially outside the U.S., is that both China and the U.S. last year were tightening monetary policy – China by slowing credit growth, the U.S. via Fed hikes. The U.S. economy was robust enough to withstand this, but economies in Europe, Asia, and Emerging Markets were not (Chart 2). The question now is whether the Chinese authorities and the Fed will come to the rescue and add stimulus that will cause a recovery in global growth. China has already triggered a rebound in credit growth since January (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S. Holding Up Better Than Elsewhere Chart 3China Stimulus Has Only Just Begun This has not come through clearly in Chinese – and other countries’ – activity data yet, partly because there is usually a lag of 3-12 months before this happens, and partly because Chinese authorities seemingly eased back somewhat on the gas pedal in April given rising expectations of a trade deal. But, judging by previous episodes such as 2009 and 2016, the Chinese will stimulate now based on the worst-case scenario. The risk is more that they overdo the stimulus than that they fail to do enough. Yes, China is worried about its excess debt situation. But this year they will prioritize growth – not least because of some sensitive anniversaries in the months ahead (for example, the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic on October 1), and because the government is falling behind on its promise to double per capita real income between 2010 and 2020 (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Communist Party Needs To Prioritize Growth Chart 5U.S. Consumers Look In Fine State     In the U.S., consumption is likely to continue to buoy the economy. Wages are growing 3.2% a year and set to accelerate further, and consumer confidence is close to a 50-year high (Chart 5). It is easy to exaggerate the impact of even an all-out trade war. For China, exports to the U.S. are only 3.4% of GDP. A hit to this could easily be offset by stimulus leading to greater capital expenditure. For the U.S, most academic studies show that the impact of tariffs will largely be passed on to the consumer via higher prices.2 But even if the U.S. imposes 25% tariffs on all Chinese exports and all is passed on to the consumer with no substitutions for goods from other countries the impact, about $130 billion, would represent only 1% of total U.S. consumption. The question now is whether the Chinese authorities and the Fed will come to the rescue and add stimulus that will cause a recovery in global growth. But if China will bail out the global economy, we are not so convinced that the Fed will cut rates any time soon. The market has priced in two Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 6). But we agree with comments from Fed officials that recent softness in inflation is transitory. For example, financial services inflation (mostly comprising financial advisor fees, linked to assets under management, and therefore very sensitive to the stock market) alone has deducted 0.4 percentage points from core PCE inflation over the past six months (Chart 7). The trimmed mean PCE (which cuts out other volatile items besides energy and food, which are excluded from the commonly used core PCE measure) is close to 2% and continues to drift up. Chart 6Will The Fed Really Cut Twice In 12 Months? Chart 7Soft Inflation Probably Is Transitory     Fed policy remains mildly accommodative: the current Fed Funds Rate is still two hikes below the neutral rate, as defined by the median terminal-rate dot in the FOMC’s Summary of Economic Projections (Chart 8). The market may be trying to push the Fed into cutting rates and could be disappointed if it does not. For now, we tend to agree with the Fed’s view that policy is about correct (Chart 9) but, if global growth does recover before the end of the year, one hike would be justified in early 2020 – before the upcoming Presidential election in November 2020 makes it less comfortable for the Fed to move. Chart 8Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative Chart 9Fed Doesn't Need To Move For Now     In this macro environment, we see global bond yields bottoming not far below their current (very depressed) levels, and equities eking out reasonable gains over the next 12 months. The risk of a global recession over the next year or so is not high, in our opinion. We, therefore, continue to recommend an overweight on global equities and underweight on bonds over the cyclical horizon.  We see global bond yields bottoming not far below their current (very depressed) levels, and equities eking out reasonable gains over the next 12 months. Fixed Income: Government bond yields have fallen sharply over the past eight months (by 110 basis points for the U.S. 10-year, for example) because of 1) falling inflation expectations, caused mostly by a weak oil price, 2) expectations of Fed rate cuts, 3) especially weak growth in Europe, which pulled German yields down to -20 basis points in May, and 4) global risk aversion which pushed asset allocators into government bonds, and lowered the term premium to near record low levels (Chart 10). If Brent crude rises to $80 a barrel this year as we forecast, the Fed does not cut rates, and European growth rebounds because of Chinese stimulus, we find it highly improbable that yields will fall much further. Ultimately, the global risk-free rate is driven by global growth (Chart 11). Investors are already positioned very aggressively for a further fall in yields (Chart 12). We would expect the U.S. 10-year yield to move back towards 3% over the next 12 months. We remain moderately positive on credit, which should also benefit from a growth rebound: U.S. high-yield spreads are still around 70 basis points for Ba-rated bonds, and 110 basis points for B-rated ones, above the levels at which they typically bottom in expansions; investment-grade bonds, though, have less room for spread contraction (Chart 13). Chart 10Term Premium Near Record Low Chart 11Global Rebound Would Push Up Yields   Chart 12Investors Very Long Duration Chart 13Credit Spreads Can Tighten Further     Equities:  We remain overweight U.S. equities, partly as a hedge against our overweight on the equity asset class, since the U.S. remains a relatively low beta market. Our call for the second half will be 1) when will Chinese stimulus start to boost growth disproportionately for commodity and capital-goods exporters, and 2) does that justify a shift out of the U.S. (which may be somewhat hurt short term by the Trade War) and into euro zone and Emerging Markets equities. Given the structural headwinds in both (the chronically weak banking system and political issues in Europe; high debt and lack of structural reforms in EM), we want clear evidence that the Chinese stimulus is working before making this call. We are likely to remain more cautious on Japan, even though it is a clear beneficiary of Chinese growth, because of the risk presented by the rise in the consumption tax in October: after previous such hikes, consumption not only slumped immediately afterwards but remained depressed (Chart 14). Chart 14Japan's Sales Tax Hike Is A Worry Chart 15Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency   Currencies:  Again, China is the key. The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, and a pickup in global growth would weaken it (Chart 15). Any further easing by the ECB – for example, significantly easier terms on the next Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTRO) – might actually be positive for the euro since it would augur stronger growth in the euro area. Moreover, long dollar is a clear consensus view, with very skewed market positioning (Chart 16). Also, on a fundamental basis, compared to Purchasing Power Parity, the dollar is around 15% overvalued versus the euro and 11% versus the yen. Chart 17Industrial Metals Driven By China Too Commodities: Industrial metals prices have generally been weak in recent months with copper, for example, falling by 10% since mid-April. It will require a sustained rebound in Chinese infrastructure spending to push prices back up (Chart 17). Oil continues to be driven by supply-side factors, not demand. With OPEC discipline holding, Iran sanctions about to be reimposed, political turmoil in Libya and Venezuela, BCA’s energy strategists continue to see inventories drawing down this year, and therefore forecast Brent crude to reach $80 during 2019 (Chart 18). Chart 18Oil Supply Remains Tight Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1       Please see Global Investment Strategy, Special Report, “Stay Cyclically Overweight Global Equities, But Hedge Near-Term Downside Risks From An Escalation Of A Trade War,” dated May 10, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see, for example, Mary Amiti, Sebastian Heise, and Noah Kwicklis, “The Impact of Import Tariffs on U.S. Domestic Prices,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, dated 4 January 2019. Recommended Asset Allocation